RENNE PUBLIC LAW GROUP

RENNE PUBLIC LAW GROUP Citizens Redistricting Commission – Litigation Counsel RFI

January 29, 2021

Primary Contact:

Jonathan V. Holtzman Renne Public Law Group

[email protected] 350 Sansome Street, Suite 300

San Francisco, CA 94104

Citizens Redistricting Commission

Jonathan V. Holtzman 415.810.9447

[email protected]

January 29, 2021

Kary Marshall Chief Counsel Citizens Redistricting Commission 721 Capitol Mall, Suite 260 Sacramento, CA 95814 [email protected]

Re: Proposal for Litigation Counsel

Dear Ms. Marshall:

Renne Public Law Group® LLP (“RPLG”) is pleased to submit this proposal to provide litigation counsel services to the Citizens Redistricting Commission (“Commission”).

I will be the authorized representative and main point of contact for this proposal. My contact information is:

Jonathan V. Holtzman, Partner Renne Public Law Group® LLP 350 Sansome Street, Suite 300

San Francisco, CA 94104 t: 415.810.9447 f: 415.848.7230 [email protected]

We understand the scope of services required, as set forth by the Commission, and affirm our commitment to perform these services if selected. We look forward to the Commission’s review and consideration of our firm.

Very truly yours,

Jonathan V. Holtzman


Table of Contents1. Personnel ............................................................................................................................... 1

Jonathan “Jon” Holtzman ................................................................................................... 1 Linda Ross ............................................................................................................................. 2 Arthur “Art” Hartinger ....................................................................................................... 2

Jenica Maldonado ................................................................................................................. 2 Ryan McGinley-Stempel ...................................................................................................... 3 Imran Dar .............................................................................................................................. 4 Michael Cohen ....................................................................................................................... 4

2. Attorney/Firm General Description .................................................................................... 5

3. Experience ............................................................................................................................. 5 A. 10 recent cases before the California Supreme Court: ................................................. 6 B. 10 recent cases where a judgement was reached in a federal court: ......................... 8 C. Representative work on behalf of public agencies and state boards or commissionsin the past 10 years: ............................................................................................................ 9 D. Experience with Section 2 and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act ........................... 12 E. Experience with electronic discovery ........................................................................... 13

4. Conflicts of Interest ............................................................................................................ 13 A. Compliance with Government Code Section 8252 ...................................................... 13 B. Other Conflicts ............................................................................................................... 13

5. Fee Arrangements ............................................................................................................... 14 6. References ............................................................................................................................ 15

Citizens Redistricting Commission 1

1. Personnel

Although we work as a team, providing a network of legal and consulting support for our public sector clients across all our practice areas, RPLG proposes the following attorneys to provide legal services to the Commission: Jonathan Holtzman, Linda Ross, Arthur Hartinger, Jenica Maldonado, Ryan McGinley-Stempel, Imran Dar, and Michael Cohen. Attachment 1 includes a biography for each proposed attorney.

Jonathan “Jon” Holtzman

We propose Jon Holtzman as lead attorney. As a founding partner of Renne Public Law Group, Mr. Holtzman specializes in government law litigation and advice, constitutional law and elections, labor relations, and project labor agreements. Mr. Holtzman served as the primary outside counsel for the California Secretary of State’s Office during the last gubernatorial recall election, and focused on issues related to voting systems. During his time working with the Secretary of State, the office successfully defended more than two dozen lawsuits related to the recall election and successfully sued a major election machine on issues related to the recall election.

Mr. Holtzman also has extensive experience representing public agencies before the state and federal appellate courts. He represented the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties as amici curiae in Retired Employees Association of Orange County, Inc. v. County of Orange (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1171, and Boling v. Public Employment Relations Board(2018) 5 Cal.5th 898, which dealt with the scope of implied vested rights and the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act’s meet and confer requirement in the context of citizens’ initiatives, respectively. Hehas secured victories for public agencies in numerous published decisions involving pensionreform (Vallejo Police Officers Association v. City of Vallejo (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 601); the FirstAmendment (Fazio v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 1977) 125 F.3d 1238); the FairLabor Standards Act (Service Employees International Union Local 102 v. County of San Diego(9th Cir. 1994) 60 F.3d 1346); and the charter of the City and County of San Francisco (UnitedAssn. of Journeymen v. City and County of San Francisco (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 751).

Jon has dedicated much of his career to improving the effectiveness of local governments. After clerking for California Supreme Court Justice Otto M. Kaus, he served as San Francisco’s Chief Deputy City Attorney, and Director of Policy and Labor. Jon litigates, negotiates, advises, and drafts ballot measures and legislation on behalf of public agencies across California. From his work as counsel for the League of California Cities on pension reform issues to his extensive work helping craft major policy initiatives for the City and County of San Francisco, including ground-breaking measures regarding living wage, equal benefits, collective bargaining, civil service reforms and criminal justice, he has a breadth of experience working on the many issues facing localities today. Jon has drafted numerous ballot measures, including a ballot measure enhancing the authority of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and a ballot measure requiring the City Controller to conduct “benchmarking” studies of City services, two of San Francisco’s MUNI reform measures, and San Francisco’s civil service and collective bargaining reforms. As General Counsel to the Moraga-Orinda Fire District, Jon also works on newly evolving issues such as fire fuel mitigation and predictive modeling of fire behavior for evacuation planning. Jon has also worked to improve flexibility in public safety staffing models in numerous cities.

Mr. Holtzman’s detailed biography is included in Attachment 1.


Linda Ross

We propose Linda Ross for writs and appeals and litigation proceedings. Ms. Ross, recently named by the Daily Journal as a Top 100 Female Attorney in California, is a key member of RPLG’s government and investigation practice groups. Prior to joining the firm, Ms. Ross was a Deputy City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco. There, she served eight years as General Counsel to the Mayor’s Office, under then-Mayor Gavin Newsom, and before that as General Counsel to the San Francisco Police Department and Police Commission.

Ms. Ross has extensive experience defending governmental initiatives in the trial and appellate courts. Recently, she has litigated a high profile pension case before the California Supreme Court, defended the City and County of San Francisco in another high profile pension matter, and represented the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and the Napa County Board of Supervisors in the successful defense of citizens’ initiatives focused on police reform and land use, respectively.

Ms. Ross’s detailed biography is included in Attachment 1.

Arthur “Art” Hartinger

We propose Art Hartinger for writs, appeals and litigation. A founding partner of RPLG, Mr. Hartinger has been recognized each year since 2004 as a “Northern California Super Lawyer,” and has also received numerous awards from the Daily Journal, including “Top 100 Lawyers in California,” “Top 20 Municipal Lawyers in California,” “Top 75 Labor and Employment Attorneys,” and “Top Defense Verdict.” Prior to founding RPLG, Mr. Hartinger was a partner at Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP, Meyers Nave, and Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, and before that served as a Deputy City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco. Mr. Hartinger represents public and private clients in complex state and federal litigation pertaining to all types of labor and employment issues, including California and U.S. constitutional law, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Title VII, Title IX, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Mr. Hartinger has litigated before the California Supreme Court, the California Court of Appeal, and the Ninth Circuit in several cases involving pension reform, serving as lead counsel for the County of Orange in Retired Employees Association of Orange County, Inc. v. County of Orange (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1171, and multiple related proceedings in the Ninth Circuit and the Central District of California. He has filed amicus curiae briefs in support of public agencies in Metropolitan Water Dist. v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 491, Claremont Police Officers Assn. v. City of Claremont (2006) 39 Cal.4th 623, and Boling v. Public Employment Relations Board (2018) 5 Cal.5th 898. Mr. Hartinger also has significant experience defending ballot measures in the state and federal courts, recently representing the City and County of San Francisco and the Napa County Board of Supervisors in the successful defense of citizens’ initiatives focused on interest arbitration, pension reform, and land use.

Mr. Hartinger’s detailed biography is included in Attachment 1.

Jenica Maldonado

We propose Jenica Maldonado for writs and appeals and litigation proceedings. Ms. Maldonado joins RPLG on February 1, 2021 as an Of Counsel. She previously worked as a Deputy City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco on the Ethics and Elections Team, where she advised the Department of Elections regarding local and state election laws and municipal law


matters, including public records and open meeting laws; drafting title and summaries, ballot questions and digests; and staffing Ballot Simplification Committee meetings for the November 2019, March 2020, and November 2020 elections. Ms. Maldonado also advised the Ethics Commission and staff regarding local and state ethics laws and advised and trained elected officials, commissioners, and City employees regarding conflicts of interest. She drafted legislation and provided advice regarding the City’s response to COVID-19.

Prior to joining the Office of the City Attorney, Ms. Maldonado was an associate at Perkins Coie LLP and Hanson Bridgett LLP. During law school, she externed for Associate Justice Joyce Kennard of the Supreme Court of California and clerked for the Government Team at the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office.

Ms. Maldonado’s detailed biography is included in Attachment 1.

Ryan McGinley-Stempel

We propose Ryan McGinley-Stempel for writs, appeals and litigation. Mr. McGinley-Stempel is a senior associate in the firm’s Government and Litigation Practice Groups and has significant experience litigating constitutional issues in the state and federal courts. Prior to joining RPLG, Mr. McGinley-Stempel was an associate at Gibson Dunn, where he focused predominantly on appellate work. Before that, he served as a law clerk at the California Supreme Court (Associate Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar); the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (Judge Scott M. Matheson); and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (now Chief-JudgeLee H. Rosenthal).

Mr. McGinley-Stempel has litigated cases before the Supreme Courts of California and the United States. He recently represented the California State Association of Counties and a coalition of 33 California counties and cities as amici curiae in Boise v. Martin (U.S. Supreme Court) Case No. 19-247, a certiorari-stage case involving homelessness and Eighth Amendment. In Briggs v.Brown (2017) 3 Cal.5th 808, Mr. McGinley-Stempel represented the Brennan Center for Justice,Erwin Chemerinksy, and several other constitutional law professors as amici curiae, arguing thatProposition 66 (which imposed various timing requirements on courts in adjudicating appeals andhabeas corpus petitions challenging sentences of death) violated the California Constitution’sseparation of powers provision. During law school, Mr. McGinley-Stempel served as a studentattorney with the Stanford Law School Litigation Clinic, where he worked on certiorari- andmerits-stage work, including in Salinas v. Texas, 133 S. Ct. 2174 (2013).

Mr. McGinley-Stempel has successfully defended ballot initiatives in state and federal courts. Working with Jon Holtzman and Art Hartinger, Mr. McGinley-Stempel persuaded the California Court of Appeal to reinstate critical portions of a ballot measure invalidated by the Public Employment Relations Board that emphasized the importance of transit effectiveness factors in resolving collective bargaining disputes between the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency and its transit operators. He also recently represented the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors with Linda Ross and the Napa County Board of Supervisors with Linda Ross and Art Hartinger in the successful defense of citizens’ initiatives focused on police reform and land use, respectively. Mr. McGinley-Stempel has also recently published an article with Michael Cohen in PublicCEO regarding redistricting entitled “COVID-19, the Census delay and local redistricting: What local public agencies can do to prepare.”


Mr. McGinley-Stempel’s detailed biography and a copy of this article is included in Attachment 1.

Imran Dar

We propose Imran Dar for litigation proceedings. Mr. Dar is an associate who focuses on public and constitutional law. Prior to joining RPLG, he served as a Judicial Fellow for Judge Laurel Beeler in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Between 2016 and 2018, Mr. Dar served as an Excelsior Service Fellow in New York’s Division of Election Law Enforcement—the enforcement unit of the State Board of Elections, created following the 2013 Moreland Commission to Investigate Public Corruption. During his fellowship, Mr. Dar conducted criminal investigations of political officials in New York and collaborated with other law-enforcement agencies in prosecuting those officials. He also litigated civil enforcement actions against political actors in state court, including one resulting in one of the largest election law fines in state history against four sitting state senators. In this role, Mr. Dar encountered a gamut of election-related issues and successfully defended New York’s elections law from constitutional challenges, including in the matter of Sugarman v. the New York State Committee of the Independence Party.

Mr. Dar graduated from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law with honors, including the Federal Bar Council’s Cornelius Wickersham Jr. Award for highest-ranking student in the field of constitutional law. During law school, Mr. Dar brought 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cases for indigent plaintiffs in the criminal justice system with the Cardozo Civil Rights Clinic and was a research assistant for Professor David Rudenstine.

Mr. Dar’s detailed biography is included in Attachment 1.

Michael Cohen

We propose Michael Cohen to provide voting rights expertise to the Commission. Mr. Cohen will be joining RPLG as a Law Clerk. He has served in the chambers of Presiding Justice Arthur Gilbert at the California Court of Appeals and pursued a variety of work advancing accessibility to social services and public benefits. On UCLA Law campus, Mr. Cohen is heavily involved with student government and political student groups and is an editor on multiple journals, including the UCLA Law Review. He has competed in several moot court competitions and earned Moot Court Honors.

Mr. Cohen works as a Legal Fellow for the UCLA Voting Rights Project. He has provided litigation assistance to a range of organizations in this role, including the League of United Latin American Citizens and the ACLU. Separately, he has provided litigation assistance to the Texas Democratic Party. He worked on several of the recent election lawsuits coming before the California and Texas Supreme Courts, district courts in Texas and Georgia, and the Fifth Circuit. He has published policy papers and scholarship on voting rights litigation, redistricting, and California election law. He has also collaborated with public officials, including the office of the California Secretary of State, to prepare reports, facilitate compliance with election laws, and expand access to the voting franchise. Mr. Cohen recently published an article with Mr. McGinley-Stempel in PublicCEO regarding redistricting entitled “COVID-19, the Census delay and local redistricting: What local public agencies can do to prepare.”

Mr. Cohen’s detailed biography is included in Attachment 1. ______________________________________________________________________________


We anticipate the percentage of time spent on work for the Commission will be determined upon receipt of the work.

2. Attorney/Firm General Description

Renne Public Law Group (RPLG) is a partnership based in San Francisco. The firm combines the careers of attorneys who have spent decades serving public agency clients throughout California. We are government lawyers, first and foremost. A central focus of government law is harmonizing the potentially competing powers of different agencies or officials within a single government such as a city or county. Many of our attorneys have litigated extensively in the areas of constitutional law, charter powers, preemption, and statutory interpretation. Our lawyers also have significant expertise advising specifically regarding the powers of elected law enforcement officers.

Our election law practice recognizes the critical need for local officials to receive timely, accurate, and practical legal advice to solve election problems arising under state and federal law. Our firm is uniquely positioned to provide these expert services in this high stakes area. Our attorneys include current and former city attorneys, former counsel for the California Secretary of State, and a member of the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office Ethics and Elections Team.

We also regularly provide advice and representation on cutting-edge legal issues including, recall elections, the Voting Rights Act, the Help America Vote Act, and the certification, security and reliability of new voting systems. Our election law and elections advisory services include, without limitation:

The initiative, referendum and recall processes, including the form and circulation ofpetitions, the verification of signatures and conduct of the election, and representation inlitigation concerning these issues;

Implementation of new voting systems; Voting Rights Act compliance, including the minority language provisions of the Act; Compliance with the Help America Vote Act; and Development of election materials in conjunction with our consultants who have

expertise in election administration.

For additional information about our firm and the services we provide to our clients, please visit www.publiclawgroup.com.

3. Experience

Our firm has significant experience practicing before the California Supreme Court, the federal district courts, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition to our advocacy work described below, our attorneys also have the following experience working within these institutions:

Jon Holtzman served as a law clerk to former Associate Justice Otto M. Kaus of theCalifornia Supreme Court.

Jenica Maldonado served as an extern for former Associate Justice Joyce Kennard of theCalifornia Supreme Court.

Ryan McGinley-Stempel served as a law clerk for Associate Justice Mariano-FlorentinoCuéllar of the California Supreme Court; Judge Scott M. Matheson of the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Tenth Circuit; and Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the U.S. District Court for


the Southern District of Texas. During his clerkship with Judge Rosenthal, Mr. McGinley-Stempel also worked on cases in the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits.

Imran Dar served as a judicial fellow for Judge Laurel Beeler of the U.S. District Courtfor the Northern District of California.

A. 10 recent cases before the California Supreme Court:

Published Cases

Alameda County Deputy Sheriff’s Association et al. v. Alameda County Employees’ RetirementAssn. et al. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 1032 (S247095). Case involved whether statutory amendmentsto the County Employees’ Retirement Law made by the Public Employees’ Pension ReformAct impaired employees’ vested rights protected by the contracts clauses of the state andfederal constitutions. We represented the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, the Real Partyin Interest in this case, successfully petitioning the California Supreme Court for review andachieving a victory on the merits in a 90-page opinion authored by the Chief Justice.

Cal Fire Local 2881 v. CalPERS (2019) 6 Cal.5th 965 (S239958). We represented the Leagueof California Cities as amicus curiae in this landmark vested rights case where the Court heldthat the Legislature did not violate the constitution when it eliminated public employees’ abilityto purchase additional retirement service credit in the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act.

Boling v. Public Employment Relations Board (2018) 5 Cal.5th 898 (S242034). Werepresented the League of California Cities as amicus curiae in this high-profile case involvingthe scope of remedial authority of the Public Employment Relations Board.

Professional Engineers in California Government v. Schwarzenegger (2010) 50 Cal.4th 989(S183411, S185654, S185404). During her time as an associate with Hanson Bridget LLP,Jenica Maldonado served as co-counsel for State of California in consolidated litigation beforethe California Supreme Court (S185654, S185404), California Court of Appeal, and AlamedaCounty Superior Court relating to California’s 2010-2011 budget impasse and the CaliforniaDepartment of Personnel Administration’s implementation of the Governor’s furloughprogram.

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP v. J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc. (2018) 6 Cal.5th59 (S232946). During his time as an associate at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Ryan McGinley-Stempel represented a law firm seeking to reinstate an arbitration award in a fee dispute withformer client. The case involved novel issues involving the arbitrability of violations of therules of professional conduct, the legality of an advance conflict waiver, and the law firm’sentitlement to compensation for legal services performed subject to an improperly waivedconflict of interest.

Briggs v. Brown (2017) 3 Cal.5th 808 (S238309). Original writ proceeding under CaliforniaRules of Court, rule 8.485 et seq. During his time as an associate at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher,Ryan McGinley-Stempel represented the Brennan Center for Justice, Erwin Chemerinsky, anda group of constitutional law professors as amici curiae in support of petitioners’ challenge tothe constitutionality of Proposition 66, which imposed various timing requirements on courtsin adjudicating appeals and habeas corpus petitions challenging sentences of death. Amici


argued that Proposition 66’s timing requirements violated the separation of powers provision of the California Constitution and filed (1) a letter urging the California Supreme Court to exercise original jurisdiction over the writ petition; (2) a brief on the merits after the Court issued an order to show cause; and (3) a supplemental brief in response to a request for supplemental briefing from the Court on a distinct issue. Although the Court ultimately upheld Proposition 66, it did so after concluding that the timing requirements in the initiative were “directory” rather than mandatory in order to avoid the separation of powers violation highlighted in amici’s briefing. The case was highlighted on the Supreme Court’s website under “Featured Supreme Court Cases” along with In re Sergio C. Garcia on Admission (S202512), Vandermost v. Bown (S198387), the Proposition 8 Cases (S168047, S168066, S168078), and In re Marriage Cases (S147999).

Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1029(S207173). We represented the League of California Cities as amicus curiae in support ofReal Party in Interest City of Sonora in case holding that CEQA review is not required beforea city chooses to directly adopt a voter-sponsored initiative rather than hold a special electionunder Election Code section 9214.

Retired Employees Assn. of Orange County, Inc. v. County of Orange (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1171(S184059). We represented the League of California Cities and the California StateAssociation of Counties as amici curiae in support of the County of Orange in case involvingcertified question from U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit regarding the circumstancesunder which counties and their employees could form an implied contract conferring vestedrights to health benefits on retired county employees. In addition, Art Hartinger, who was atthe time a Partner with Meyers Nave, represented the County of Orange.

San Francisco Fire Fighters Local 798 v. City and County of San Francisco (2006) 38 Cal.4th653 (S131818). Linda Ross represented the City and County of San Francisco in case holdingthat City and County had considerable discretion under charter provision exempting it frombinding interest arbitration for rules and policies necessary to ensure compliance with anti-discrimination laws.

Review-Stage Work

Contra Costa Fire Protection District v. Public Employment Relations Board (S265657). Werepresent the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties asamici curiae in support of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. A divided panelof the Public Employment Relations Board found that the Fire Protection District violated theMeyers-Milias-Brown Act and awarded a backpay remedy that essentially imposes contractterms on the District that it had rejected at the bargaining table. After the Court of Appealsummarily denied the District’s petition for review, the District asked the California SupremeCourt to grant review and transfer the matter back to the Court of Appeal with directions toissue a reasoned opinion. We represented the LOCC and CSAC in the Court of Appeal andhave filed a letter in support of the District’s petition for review in the Supreme Court.

Fowler v. City of Lafayette (S261744). We represented the League of California Cities and theCalifornia Special Districts Association in requesting that the California Supreme Courtdepublish a Court of Appeal opinion regarding the Brown Act’s closed meeting requirementsthat overlooked critical legislative history and threatens to burden local agencies across thestate.

7


Association of Irritated Residents v. California Department of Conservation (S242962).During his time as an associate at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Ryan McGinley-Stempelrepresented Real Party in Interest Aera Energy, filing a petition for review of a Court of Appealdecision involving the applicability of claim preclusion to a dismissal based on mootness andthe scope of privity necessary to apply issue preclusion in the context of public rights litigation.

Vergara v. California (S234741). During his time as an associate at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher,Ryan McGinley-Stempel represented students seeking review of Court of Appeal decisioninvolving state constitutional right to education. Although the petition for review was denied,it resulted in extremely rare dissenting statements by Associate Justices Liu and Cuéllar.

Lubin v. Wackenhut (S239254). During his time as an associate at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher,Ryan McGinley-Stempel represented a company that provides security services, filing apetition for review of an expansive Court of Appeal decision involving the standards forcertifying a wage-and-hour class action.

B. 10 recent cases where a judgement was reached in a federal court:

Barrett v. County of Napa, (N.D. Cal.) Case Nos. 18-cv-6124 and 18-cv-6683. We representedNapa County in defending a voter initiative against facial preemption and constitutionalvagueness and vested rights challenge brought in consolidated actions. We obtained dismissalof the central part of the case -- a federal preemption claim. Ultimately, the remainder of thecase, which was based on an assertion of vagueness, settled based on a clarification of ballotlanguage issued by the County.

Doe v. White, et al., Case No. 19-cv-04923-SI, 440 F. Supp. 3d 1074 (N.D. Cal. 2020) – JudgeSusan Illston issued a complete defense victory in this high-profile case challenging theconstitutionality of the interim suspension of a student pending investigation of alleged sexualmisconduct, with the Court granting motion for qualified immunity on behalf of all theindividual defendants and motion to dismiss without leave to amend. We continue to representthe California State University and its employees on appeal (No. 20-15450, 9th Cir.) indefending the district court’s dismissal.

Gaylin Harris, et al v. County of Orange (C.D. Cal.), Case No. SACV 09-00098-AG (MLGx);(9th Cir.), Case No. 19-56387 - The Harris plaintiffs challenge changes to the County’s RetireeMedical Grant plan, which provides a monthly premium subsidy, and they assert that reducingthe subsidy is a violation of their vested rights under the Contracts Clause of the state andfederal constitutions. The County has twice moved to have the case dismissed on thepleadings, and the District Court granted each motion. The Ninth Circuit, however, reversedeach dismissal and remanded the case back to the District Court each time—most recently onSeptember 19, 2018. On September 27, 2019, the County filed its Motion for SummaryJudgment. On November 1, 2019, the Parties appeared before the District Court to argue themotion, and on November 25, 2019, the Court granted the motion and entered judgment infavor of the County. Plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit, and both parties havesubmitted their respective briefs. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments onNovember 18, 2020.

Flores v. City of San Gabriel, (C.D. Cal.) Case No. 12-cv-4884; 824 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2016).We took over this case to represent the City of San Gabriel in the U.S. Supreme Court on


petition for certiorari after an unfavorable Ninth Circuit decision, and successfully resolved the matter in favorable settlement on remand.

Dantzler v. City and County of San Francisco, (N.D. Cal) Case No. 3:16-cv-03119-EMC,closed 01/08/2018. Summary judgment granted for defendants on terminated SFMTAoperator’s discrimination and failure to accommodate claims.

Stevenson et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, (N.D. Cal) Case No. 3:11-cv-04950-MMC, closed 06/28/2016. Defended City in multi-plaintiff disparate impact lawsuitchallenging a San Francisco Fire Department promotional exam. Managed extensiveelectronic discovery production and drafted motion for summary judgment. Judgment issuedfollowing defense verdict.

Lam et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, (N.D. Cal) Case No. 4:08-cv-04702-PJH,closed 03/07/2016. Obtained summary judgment for City regarding juvenile probationofficers’ discrimination claims. Affirmed on appeal.

Bower v. City and County of San Francisco, (N.D. Cal) Case No. 3:14-cv-02239-SI, closed3/23/15. Obtained voluntary dismissal of SFMTA employee’s discrimination claim andjudgment for defendant in advance of plaintiff’s deposition.

Singson v. City of Millbrae, (N.D. Cal) 3:10-cv-05307-SI, closed 5/16/2012. Second-chairedjury trial regarding Millbrae police officer’s first amendment retaliation claim. Conducted voirdire and examined witnesses. Judgment granted following defense verdict.

Atwal v. Lawrence Livermore Nat’l Security LLC, (N.D. Cal) Case No. 3:11-cv-03030-MMC,closed 3/29/2012. Judgment on the pleadings and partial summary judgment granted fordefendant regarding terminated LLNS employee’s discrimination claims.

C. Representative work on behalf of public agencies and state boards or commissions inthe past 10 years:

All but a very small portion of the work of the firm is performed on behalf of public agencies. The following are some examples:

Essick v. Sonoma County Board of Supervisors (2020) Sonoma County Superior Court, CaseNo. SCV-26914. We represented the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and successfullydefeated the Sheriff’s petition for a writ of mandate to require the Board to provide funds tothe Sheriff to challenge a county-wide ballot measure that expanded the authority of theIndependent Office of Law Enforcement Review and Outreach, the county office that overseesthe Sheriff’s Department.

The Sheriff argued that the measure might interfere with his investigative functions or hisability to fulfill his duties. To explore litigation against the measure, he requested that theCounty Board of Supervisors authorize him to use $50,000 of the Sheriff’s Department’sbudget to hire outside legal counsel, arguing that it would be a conflict of interest for countyattorneys to advise him.

The court denied the Sheriff’s petition for writ of mandate because he based his argument onthe possibility that the initiative might interfere with his investigative functions and ability tofulfill his duties, rather than concrete examples of this interference. The court ruled that the


Sheriff did not meet the burden of proof to show that the County Board of Supervisors needed to appoint outside legal counsel or show that he had a clear right to counsel.

Reference: Bruce Goldstein, Sonoma County Counsel, [email protected], (707) 565-6118. Project completion date: December 17, 2020.

Denny v. Arntz (2019-2021). Represented the City in pre- and post-election lawsuits toinvalidate a November 2019 $600 million general obligation bond measure to financeaffordable housing based on allegedly flawed language in the voter materials and onconstitutional grounds. Demurrer granted in the pre-election challenge and appeal waived.Michael Denny v. John Arntz et al., S.F. Superior Court Case No. CPF-195-16823 (filed8/27/2019). Dismissal granted in post-election challenge and appeal pending. In re: MichaelDenny, S.F. Superior Court Case No. CPF-195-16970, Court of Appeal, 1st District, Case No.A160234.

Hochstatter v. Arntz (2019). Successfully defended ballot digest concerning a November 2019ballot measure to reverse a forthcoming moratorium on electronic cigarette sales in SanFrancisco. Jennifer Hochstatter v. John Arntz et al., S.F. Superior Court, Case No. CPF-10-516813 (filed August 23, 2019).

Rain Daugherty v. City and County of San Francisco, et al., S.F. Superior Court, Case No.CPF-15-514302; Court of Appeal, Case Nos. A145863, A147385, published decision authoredby now-Supreme Court Associate Justice Jenkins available at 24 Cal.App.5th 928 (2018).Successfully defended San Francisco Police Department’s decision to terminate officers foruse of racist and other offensive language against a statute of limitations challenge under thePublic Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (“POBRA”).

City and County of San Francisco v. Retirement Board of San Francisco Employees’Retirement System (Cal. App. 1st Dist. May 10, 2019), Case No. A151518, 2019 WL 2067236.Case brought by the City and County of San Francisco and the Controller against its retirementsystem and Board for exceeding their authority under the Charter. We successfully defendedSan Francisco in its interpretation of a ballot measure that reduced certain pension benefitsinvolving cost-of-living adjustments, achieving a complete victory in the trial court and onappeal, and upheld a significant part of the City’s pension reform efforts.

Reference: Moira Walsh, Managing Attorney, City and County of San Francisco,[email protected], (415) 554-4707

Boise v. Martin, (U.S. Supreme Court) Case No. 19-247. We represented the California StateAssociation of Counties and coalition of 33 California counties and cities as amici curiae incertiorari-stage case involving homelessness and Eighth Amendment.

Reference: Jennifer Henning, Litigation Counsel, California State Association of Counties,[email protected], 916-327-7535

City and County of San Francisco v. Public Employment Relations Board, et al. (Cal. App. 1stDist. July 22, 2019), Case No. A152913, 2019 WL 3296947. We persuaded the First DistrictCourt of Appeal to set aside the bulk of a decision by the Public Employment Relations Boardand reinstate portions of Proposition G, a voter initiative that amended the San FranciscoCharter to further the City and County of San Francisco’s Transit First Policy.


Reference: Katie Porter, Chief Labor Attorney, City and County of San Francisco, [email protected], (415) 554-3896

Ramirez v. City and County of San Francisco, No. A151552, 2019 WL 1323449 (Cal.App. 1st Dist. March 25, 2019) - Art Hartinger represented the City and County of San Francisco filed by a former employee of the District Attorney’s Office regarding an employment decision by former District Attorney George Gascon. The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment in favor of San Francisco in an age discrimination case targeting former District Attorney George Gascon.

Reference: Katie Porter, Chief Labor Attorney, City and County of San Francisco, [email protected], (415) 554-3896

Allum, et al., v. San Joaquin County Employees’ Retirement Association, and the County ofSan Joaquin, Case No. STK-CV-UBC-2017-10696 (San Joaquin County Superior Ct.) - InSeptember 2019, we obtained summary judgment for the County of San Joaquin in a classaction seeking millions of dollars from the San Joaquin County Retirement Association, theSan Joaquin County Board of Retirement, and the County of San Joaquin for alleged breachesof a settlement agreement arising from Ventura County Deputy Sheriffs’ Assoc. v. County ofVentura (1997) 16 Cal.4th 483. We are representing the County in the plaintiffs’ appeals (Nos.C090833 & C091768, Cal. App. 3d Dist.) from the superior court’s summary judgment orderand order awarding costs.

Reference: J. Mark Myles, County Counsel, Office of the County Counsel of San JoaquinCounty, [email protected], (209) 468-2980

Fry v. City of Los Angeles (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 539. We represented the City of LosAngeles in defending a program that required active employees to contribute toward the City’sretiree medical subsidy program, leading to a successful result on appeal.

Reference: Anya J. Freedman, Assistant City Attorney, Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office,(310) 489-6372

City of Palo Alto v. Public Employment Relations Board (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 1271. JonHoltzman represented the City of Palo Alto in an appeal a from Public Employment RelationsBoard decision finding that the City violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act in referring ameasure to the voters repealing the city charter’s binding interest arbitration provision withoutconsulting in good faith with the fire-fighters’ union. In addition, Art Hartinger and LindaRoss, who at the time worked for Meyers Nave, represented the League of California Cities asamicus curiae in support of the City of Palo Alto.

Reference: Corrie Manning, General Counsel, League of California Cities,[email protected], (916) 658-8267

San Jose Police Officers Association v. City of San Jose, Santa Clara Superior Court Case No.1-12-CV-225926. In this nationally followed pension reform trial, we served as lead trialattorneys defending San Jose’s Measure B, which was overwhelming passed by the San Josevoters to reform its pension system.

Reference: Richard Doyle, City of San Jose, City Attorney, [email protected], (408) 535-1900


Dikes v. Santa Clara Valley Water District, Case No. 19CV346252 (Santa Clara Superior Ct.)– Plaintiff filed suit against defendant Santa Clara Valley Water District that involved allegednegligent administration of pension benefits. We represented the Water District, asserting avariety of defenses in its demurrers to each cause of action, including: (a) immunity under theGovernment Code; (b) no duty in this context that would support any negligence-based caseof action. Judge Sunil Kulkarni sustained in its entirety the District’s demurrer to the firstamended complaint without leave to amend. Case finally resolved on January 9, 2020.

Reference: Stan Yamamoto, District Counsel, Santa Clara Valley Water District, [email protected], (408) 265-2607

D. Experience with Section 2 and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act

Our attorneys are familiar with Section 2 and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. As noted above, RPLG attorneys include current and former city attorneys, former counsel to the California Secretary of State, and a member of the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office Ethics and Elections Team. Below is a list of Michael Cohen’s recent voting rights work:

Harding v. County of Dallas, 336 F.Supp.3d 677 (N.D. Tex. 2018) (helped prepare leadcounsel for Dallas County, Texas for oral arguments defending the County’s 2011 redistrictingplan from Anglo voters bringing VRA section 2 claim alleging that the plan improperly favoredminority voters)

In re State, 602 S.W.3d 549 (Tex. 2020) (drafted several documents for amicus TexasDemocratic Party in action seeking to establish that a prospective voter’s lack ofimmunity to COVID-19 is a basis for obtaining a mail ballot under Texas law)

Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott, 461 F.Supp.3d 406 (W.D. Tex. 2020) (drafted severaldocuments in First, Fourteenth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendment challenge to Texas mailballot access law)

Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott, 978 F.3d 168 (5th Cir. 2020) (drafted several documents inTwenty-Sixth Amendment challenge to Texas mail ballot access law)

Black Voters Matter Fund v. Raffensperger, 2020 WL 4597053 (N.D. Ga. 2020) (helpedresearch and write expert witness report for ACLU’s Twenty-Fourth and FourteenthAmendment challenge to Georgia’s refusal to pay postage for mail ballots)

Issa v. Newsom, 2020 WL 6580452 (E.D. Cal. 2020) (drafted motion to intervene forintervenor-defendant voting rights organization to protect California Governor’s orderthat all voters receive a mail ballot for the 2020 general election)

Republican National Committee v. Newsom, 2020 WL 3430243 (E.D. Cal. 2020) (draftedmotion to intervene for intervenor-defendant voting rights organization to protectCalifornia Governor’s order that all voters receive a mail ballot for the 2020 generalelection)

Anderson v. Raffensperger, 2020 WL 6048048 (N.D. Ga. 2020) (drafted section of expertwitness report for plaintiffs seeking relief from long polling location lines in Georgia duringthe June 2020 primary election)


This experience allows us to provide the Commission with cutting-edge legal advice and represent them in the event of litigation. Additionally, this allows us to work with the Commission to develop election materials and implement improved voting systems.

E. Experience with electronic discovery

RPLG has extensive experience with electronic discovery. All our attorneys, especially our Litigation Team, work with electronic discovery daily. The electronic discovery we generate and receive is stored in the firm’s document management system.

4. Conflicts of Interest

A. Compliance with Government Code Section 8252

RPLG does not have a potential financial, business, professional, lobbying, or other relationship that presents a potential conflict as described in California Government Code Section 8252. RPLG does not have any work relating to Redistricting or other work for current or previous clients during that past 10 years that could present the appearance of a conflict with the representation of the Commission in connection with the defense of its maps.

1. Lobbying Work the Firm Has Performed in California During the Past 10 Years

In the past 10 years, affiliated lobbying group, Renne Public Policy Group, has performed lobbying work in Sacramento for the following entities:

City of Belmont

City of Carlsbad

City of Corona

CA Public Private Alliance

Cruz Strategies

City of Eastvale

Feather River Recreation and Park District

City of Foster City

Interwest Consulting Group

League of California Cities

City of Redwood City

City of San Gabriel

Stockton East Water District

None of this work deals with redistricting or elections.

2. Political Contributions, Including Contributions Made by a Firm Political ActionCommittee, to Candidates as Described in California Government Code Section 8252,During the Past 10 years

The firm has not politically contributed to candidates in the past 10 years, as described in California Government Code Section 8252. In the past 10 years, the following attorneys contributed $2,000 or more to any congressional, state, or local candidate for elective public office:

Mr. Holtzman contributed $2,800 to the Biden Victory Fund on August 27, 2020.

B. Other Conflicts

We are not aware of any matters in which the firm is engaged in litigation against the State of California. To the extent known, we have not previously provided work to an adverse party or witness.

Disclosures of the proposed team are as follows:


Ms. Maldonado served as Deputy City Attorney for the San Francisco City Attorney’s Officefrom 2014 through January 15, 2021.

Mr. McGinley-Stempel volunteered for the Democratic Party’s Voter Protection Hotline forroughly 20-30 hours between September and November 2020. All of the calls Mr. McGinley-Stempel fielded came from outside of California. During his time as an associate at GibsonDunn & Crutcher, Mr. McGinley-Stempel represented clients adverse to the State of Californiain the following matters: Briggs v. Brown (S238309); Vergara v. California (S234741).

Mr. Cohen took part in UCLA Law's environmental law clinic, through which he completedunpaid work for CA Senator Henry Stern. The relationship with his office involved researchingpotential wildfire legislation and lasted from August-December 2020.

5. Fee Arrangements

Our fees for professional services are based on the fair value of the services rendered. To help us determine the value of our services, our attorneys and paralegals maintain time records for each client and matter. Our attorneys and paralegals are assigned hourly rates which are based on years of experience, specialization, training, and level of professional attainment. We adjust our rates periodically (usually at the beginning of each year) to take into account inflation and the increased experience of our professional personnel.

To keep professional fees at a minimum, legal work that does not require more experienced attorneys will be performed, where feasible, by attorneys with lower billing rates. Paralegals and law clerks are available to do a variety of tasks to support attorneys, including maintaining and organizing files, conducting research, and drafting documents.

RPLG will bill the Commission on a monthly basis. Each bill will indicate the date of the work done, the nature of the work that was accomplished, the attorney that performed the work, and the fee for the work.

The following out-of-pocket expenses will be separately itemized and included in bills to the Commission, without markup: (1) extraordinary operating expenses, including items such as messenger services, overnight mail charges, extraordinary copying and computer-assisted research; (2) necessary travel and subsistence expenses; (3) court costs, including filing fees, witness fees, and deposition and discovery costs not paid directly by the Commission. All travel will be reimbursed at the IRS prevailing rate for mileage only.

The Commission will review and, if it agrees with the amounts, approve RPLG's monthly statements and pay RPLG for services rendered and expenses incurred at the rates and in the amounts provided in this agreement within thirty (30) days of receipt of the monthly statements.

The following rates reflect our 2021 public sector hourly fee schedule:

Partners $375 - $550

Of Counsel $305 - $425

Associates $275 - $350

Law Clerks $145 - $155

Paralegals $135 - $195

Analysts $95 - $160

Consultants $175 - $450


The current specific hourly rates of the attorneys listed on the proposal are as follows:

Jon Holtzman, Partner $445

Linda Ross, Partner $445

Art Hartinger, Partner $445

Jenica Maldonado, Of Counsel $405

Ryan McGinley-Stempel, Senior Associate

$405

Imran Dar, Associate $295

Michael Cohen, Law Clerk $225

6. References

Sherri Sokeland Kaiser Chief Deputy County Counsel Napa County Counsel (707) 259-8247

Corrie Manning General Counsel League of California Cities [email protected]

Teri Maksoudian Senior Supervising County Counsel County of Orange [email protected] (949) 400-6444

Jennifer Bacon Henning Litigation Counsel California State Association of Counties [email protected] 916-327-7535

Richard Llewellyn City Administrative Officer City of Los Angeles [email protected] (213) 473-7354


ATTACHMENT 1

Public law in the public interest. Renne Public Law Group® • 350 Sansome Street, Suite 300 • San Francisco, CA 94104

www.rennepubliclawgroup.com

Jonathan V. Holtzman Partner

(415) 848-7235 • [email protected]

Practice Areas Labor Relations and Labor Law Employment Law and Litigation Government Law and Litigation Public Safety Reform and

Innovations

Bar Admission California

Education Stanford School of Law, JD Haverford College, BA

Experience

Jonathan (Jon) Holtzman is a founding partner of Renne Public Law Group, and was previously a founding partner of Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP. Since 2005, and every year since, Mr. Holtzman has been named a “Northern California Super Lawyer.”

Mr. Holtzman’s practice focuses on assisting government agencies maintain and expand public services through strategic consulting, negotiations, fact finding, arbitration and litigation. He specializes in addressing long-term structural issues relating to pensions, health benefits, retirement health benefits, civil service reform, and other means of attaining greater managerial discretion and effectiveness through collective bargaining and reorganization. He frequently speaks and writes on matters pertaining to municipal bankruptcy, ballot initiatives, interest arbitration, bargaining, fact finding, comparability, fiscal analysis for bargaining, and pension and retirement medical programs.

Mr. Holtzman has experience in virtually all aspects of employment law and labor relations. His labor expertise encompasses negotiations, fact finding, mediation, grievance and interest arbitration, and litigation related to bargaining obligations. He is the author of Rutter Group’s California Practice Guide: Public Sector Employment Litigation Guide, the leading treatise on public sector employment issues.

Mr. Holtzman also practices government law, including general advice work, drafting ballot and other legislative measures and initiatives, litigating issues of constitutional and statutory interpretation, and electoral matters. He currently serves as District Counsel to the Moraga Orinda Fire District.

RELATED EXPERIENCE Prior to entering private practice, Mr. Holtzman served as Director of Labor and Policy in the office of San Francisco Mayor Willie L. Brown, Jr. His duties included serving as the Mayor’s chief labor negotiator. As a senior advisor to the Mayor, Mr. Holtzman oversaw the management of city employment and benefits issues, and helped craft major policy initiatives including the city’s living wage law, civil service reforms, and criminal justice initiatives.


Jonathan V. Holtzman • 415.848.7235 • [email protected]


Before working directly for Mayor Brown, Mr. Holtzman was San Francisco’s Chief Deputy City Attorney. He was a principal architect of the City Attorney’s nationally recognized affirmative litigation program, which brought together groups of local government and non-profit plaintiffs to seek court-ordered reform of unfair business practices by energy producers, tobacco companies, national banks, gun manufacturers, auto insurers, and escrow companies. He also defended San Francisco’s affirmative action programs in a series of lawsuits arising under Proposition 209, including San Francisco’s challenges to Proposition 209 in both state and federal courts.

Before his appointment as Chief Deputy City Attorney, Mr. Holtzman was San Francisco’s chief labor and employment attorney. In that role he served as a chief negotiator in labor negotiations and interest arbitration with the City’s 47 unions, and acted as lead counsel in lawsuits, writs, class actions, and appeals involving all facets of labor and employment law. Mr. Holtzman managed the City’s transition to collective bargaining and interest arbitration and drafted attendant charter and civil service reform measures. On behalf of three mayoral administrations and numerous boards of supervisors, he authored and negotiated more than a dozen labor- related charter amendments adopted by the voters.

Mr. Holtzman has been extensively involved in efforts to improve government effectiveness. He negotiated and drafted a 1999 ballot measure reforming the governance of San Francisco’s municipal transit system and making it a quasi-independent agency, and Proposition G, which overhauled MUNI’s system of negotiation with unions. He also drafted a 2002 ballot measure enhancing the authority of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, and a 2003 ballot measure requiring the City Controller to conduct “benchmarking” studies of City services, as well as performance audits to improve government effectiveness.

Before joining the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office, Mr. Holtzman was an associate at Morrison & Foerster for four years, focusing primarily on employment class actions. Upon graduation from Stanford Law School, he clerked for California Supreme Court Associate Justice Otto Kaus for two years. During law school he clerked for the Washington, D.C. Center for Law and Social Policy and for the Washington D.C. firm founded by former Defense Secretary Clark Clifford and disarmament negotiator Paul Warnke.

SELECTED PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLICATIONS

Rutter Group Vesting Panel, What’s Next for the “California Rule” Public Employee Pensions as Vested Rights, The Rutter Group/MCLE Program, June, 2018

Rutter Group: California Practice Guide, Public Sector Employment Litigation (2017)

Declarations of Fiscal Emergency: A Resurging Option for Public Entities Attempting to Deal With The Current Economic Climate, California Public Law Journal, Vol. 34, No. 1,Winter 2011.

Does Labor Law Prevent Voter Initiatives To Control Pensions? The Coming Fight Between Core Democratic Principles and Traditional Labor Negotiation in the Public Sector, Bender’s California Labor & Employment Bulletin, Vol. 2012, No. 10, October 2010.


Jonathan V. Holtzman • 415.848.7235 • [email protected]


REPRESENTATIVE PUBLISHED DECISIONS

Fazio v. City and County of San Francisco, 125 F.3d 1238 (9th Cir. 1977), holding that assistant district attorney is a policymaker who can be dismissed due to speech critical of the District Attorney.

Stewart v. City and County of San Francisco, 834 F.Supp. 1223 (N.D.Cal. 1993), first case to hold Department of Labor’s 1954 “salary basis test” invalid as applied to public employers, eliminating large FLSA liability.

Service Employees International Union Local 102 v. County of San Diego, 60 F.3d 1346 (9th Cir. 1994), adopting San Francisco’s argument that federal “salary basis test” cannot lawfully be applied to government employers.

United Farm Workers of America v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board, 41 Cal.App.4th 303 (1995), and a related case against San Francisco, holding that the California Table Grapes Council lacked authority to sue the union and the City on behalf of growers.

United Association of Journeymen v. City and County of San Francisco, 32 Cal.App.4th 751 (1995), upholding $60 million wage freeze under San Francisco City Charter.

Retired Employees Association of Orange County v. County of Orange, 52 Cal.4th 1171 (2011), holding that a county may be bound by an implied contract under California law if there is no legislative prohibition against such arrangements, such as a statute or ordinance.

Vallejo Police Officers Assn. v. City of Vallejo (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 601.



Linda M. Ross Partner


Practice Areas Administrative Hearing and

Arbitration Appeals and Writs Employment Law and Litigation Labor Relations and Labor Law Public Agency Law Training Transportation Workplace Investigations

Bar Admission California New York

Education University of California, Berkeley,

Boalt Hall School of Law, JD Articles Editor, California Law

Review University of California, Berkeley,

BA

Experience

The Daily Journal named Linda Ross as one of California’s top 75 Labor and Employment Lawyers and top 100 Women Lawyers.

Ms. Ross brings a wealth of experience to Renne Public Law Group after working for 20 years with the City and County of San Francisco and more recently, in private practice. Ms. Ross represents public entities, including cities, counties, special districts, and transit agencies, in a wide variety of public law matters, including advice, litigation, and appellate work involving pension reform, labor and employment, internal investigations, wage and hour, the Public Records Act, open meetings laws, and governance.

Recently Ms. Ross represented public agencies in closely watched pension cases before the California Supreme Court, and achieved appellate victories in other cases involving the vested rights of public employees.

RELATED EXPERIENCE Ms. Ross gained vast knowledge in public law while serving San Francisco as General Counsel to the Mayor’s Office, Chief Labor Attorney, and General Counsel for the Police Commission and the Police Department.

General Counsel, San Francisco Mayor’s Office As General Counsel to the Mayor’s Office, Ms. Ross advised then Mayor Gavin Newsom and coordinated with City department heads on local governance and policy issues including ethics, public meetings laws, the Public Records Act, and public contracting. While General Counsel, Ms.


Linda M. Ross • 415.848.7239 • [email protected]


Ross authored a gun control measure upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 2014) 246 F 3d. 953, against a Second Amendment challenge. In 2015, the United States Supreme Court denied review.

Chief Labor Attorney As Chief Labor Attorney for San Francisco, Ms. Ross was in charge of a 20-person legal team, representing City departments, boards and commissions in employment and labor law issues. She successfully defended San Francisco before the California Supreme Court in San Francisco Firefighters Local 798 v. City and County of San Francisco (2006) 38 Cal.4th 653, in which the Court upheld the City’s non-discriminatory testing procedures.

General Counsel, Police Department As General Counsel to the San Francisco Police Department and Police Commission, Ms. Ross advised the Department and Commission on police personnel issues and public safety initiatives. Working with the District Attorney’s Office, she drafted the Department’s Brady policy which was upheld by the California Supreme Court in the case of People v. The Superior Court of San Francisco County (2015) 61 Cal.4th 696. In a rare occurrence, the Court appended the policy to its opinion.

PUBLISHED DECISIONS

San Francisco Firefighters Local 798 v. City and County of San Francisco, (2006) 38 Cal.4th 653.

Local 21 of the International Federation, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 213.

Fry v. City of Los Angeles (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 539.

Alameda Deputy Sheriffs’ Assn., et al. v. Alameda County Employees’ Retirement Assn, et al. (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 61.

PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLICATIONS

Presenter, “Arbitration Basics,” Washington Public Employer Labor Relations Association (WAPELRA), Annual Training Conference, 2015

Presenter, “How to Navigate Changes in Public Employee Retiree Health Benefits,” Judicial Council of California, Labor Relations Academy II, 2015

Presenter, “Navigating Changes to Public Employee Medical Benefits,” Webinar, 2015

Presenter, “Mock Arbitration Part One: Preparation, Opening Statement, and Direct Examination,” National Public Employer Labor Relations Association (NPELRA) Annual Training Conference, 2015

Author, “Searching for Vested Rights, Case By Case,” Daily Journal, May, 2014

Speaker, “Vested Rights: What We Can and Cannot Change,” California Public Employers Labor Relations Association (CALPELRA) Annual Conference, 2012


Linda M. Ross • 415.848.7239 • [email protected]


Speaker, “Social Media and the Workplace: Recruitment, Background Checks and Personal Use,” International Public Management Association, 2012

Presenter, Pension/Impairment of Vested Rights, State Bar of California, Annual Public Sector Conference, 2017

Presenter, Whistleblowers, How To Manage, CALPELRA, 2017

Presenter, Vested Rights, What Is Happening With The California Rule, CALPELRA, 2017

Presenter, Immigration: The California Values Act, Municipal Law Institute, 2018

Presenter, Rutter Group Vesting Panel, What’s Next for the “California Rule” Public Employee Pensions as Vested Rights, The Rutter Group/MCLE Program, June, 2018



Arthur Hartinger Partner


Practice Areas Labor and Employment Government Litigation Workplace Investigations

Bar Admission California

Education University of San Francisco, School

of Law, JD University of California,

Berkeley, BA

Experience

With a practice focused on labor and employment law for over 33 years, Arthur (Art) Hartinger is one of California’s leading labor and employment attorneys. He is a founding partner of Renne Public Law Group, and was previously a partner at Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP. Since 2004, he has been recognized each year as a “Northern California Super Lawyer” and was one of the Daily Journal’s “Top 75 Labor & Employment Attorneys” in 2013. He was also selected by the Daily Journal as one of the “Top 20 Municipal Lawyers in California” for 2011, 2012, and 2013, and in 2012 he was named one of the “Top 100 Lawyers in California.”

Prior to working at Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai, Mr. Hartinger was a partner at Meyers Nave, where he chaired the Labor and Employment Group for 16 years. He also worked as a partner at Liebert, Cassidy & Frierson, a Deputy City Attorney at the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office, and an associate at Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison.

SIGNIFICANT LITIGATION EXPERIENCE Mr. Hartinger represents public and private clients in complex state and federal litigation pertaining to all types of labor and employment issues, including California and U.S. constitutional law, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Title VII, Title IX, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Mr. Hartinger has represented clients in a variety of litigation matters, including class actions, writs, and jury trials. His litigation practice also includes administrative and binding arbitration hearings before personnel boards, arbitrators, and administrative law judges. He also frequently advises public agencies, personnel boards, and civil service commissions.

WAGE AND HOUR LITIGATION Mr. Hartinger regularly handles wage and hour cases, including class actions. Representative cases include:


Arthur Hartinger • 415.848.7231 • [email protected]


Rai, et al. v. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 5:12-cv-04344-PSG. Art served as lead counsel in a case brought by hundreds of transit operators claiming unpaid overtime under state and federal theories.

Stitt, et al. vs. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 4:12-cv-03704-YGR. Similar to the SCVTA case, Art was lead counsel in a case brought by San Francisco Transit Operators claiming state and federal overtime.

Sahaj vs. El Dorado Irrigation District, United State District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:11-cv-01341-GEB-DAD. This class action involved unpaid meal times and asserted both state and federal claims.

PENSION REFORM Mr. Hartinger advises clients on pension reform and is lead counsel in numerous cases, including:

Retired Employees Assn. of Orange County, Inc. v. County of Orange (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1171. Facing a $1.4 Billion reported unfunded liability, the Board of Supervisors initiated a program to de-pool actives and retirees for purposes of setting health plan rates. Art was lead counsel in the case that resulted in the courts upholding the Board’s plan.

Fry v. City of Los Angeles (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 539. The Los Angeles City Council turned to Art and his team to defend a program that required active employees to contribute toward the City’s retiree medical subsidy program, leading to a successful result.

DISCRIMINATION/HARRASMENT/RETALIATION/WHISTLEBLOWING Mr. Hartinger has served as lead trial counsel in numerous cases alleging violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act and Title VII, as well as retaliation cases under the Labor Code and California and United States Constitutions. Noteworthy examples include:

Booker v. City of Richmond, Contra Costa Superior Court, Case No. C07-00408. Achieved a complete defense victory in this $18 million dollar high profile race discrimination, harassment and retaliation case filed by eight African American command staff officers in the Richmond Police Department. The jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the City and its two highest ranking police officers.

Eng v. Santa Clara Valley Water District, Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 5:97-cv-20212-JW. Represented the Santa Clara Valley Water District in litigation filled by the former budget officer of the District. The budget officer claimed constructive discharge and asserted various causes of action, including wrongful discharge and violation of public policy, California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) claims, and other state law claims. Art represented the District in a jury trial. The Court granted the District’s motion for a nonsuit, and the court of appeal affirmed.

McFall v. City of Tracy, San Joaquin County Superior Court, Case No. STK-CV-UWT-2005-0001975. The firm successfully defended the City of Tracy in an action brought by former employee alleging discrimination and retaliation under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Art




obtained a defense verdict after a jury trial in San Joaquin County Superior Court. The City was awarded over $100,000 in costs.

ARBITRATIONS AND ADMINSTRATIVE HEARINGS Mr. Hartinger has litigated dozens of arbitrations and administrative matters, ranging from contract arbitration to discipline, to personnel boards and commissions, and matters before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

LABOR RELATIONS Mr. Hartinger is experienced in labor relations, negotiations, and workplace investigations. As a lead negotiator in collective bargaining, he has represented numerous employers in negotiations with deputy sheriffs, police and fire personnel, managers, service employees, laborers, attorneys, and other professional and service employees.

ADVOCACY Mr. Hartinger actively writes and contributes to amicus curiae briefs on behalf of public entities throughout the country. His advocacy work includes:

Representing, in collaboration with the San Francisco City Attorney, the National League of Cities and other public employer leagues on behalf of the Commonwealth of Kentucky in Jackson v. Com. of Kentucky (6th Cir. 1997) 129 F.3d 1264.

Lead writer of the amicus curiae efforts by the National League of Cities and the City and County of San Francisco in Service Employees International Union v. County of San Diego (9th Cir. 1995) 60 F.3d 1346.

Author of the amicus brief for the League of California Cities and 91 public entities in Barner v. City of Novato (9th Cir. 1994) 17 F.3d 1256.

Represented the League of California Cities supporting the City of San Diego in Boling v. PERB, Supreme Court No. S24204.

Mr. Hartinger has twice received the prestigious Amicus Service Award from the International Municipal Lawyers Association.

PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLICATIONS

“Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) Update,” County Counsels’ Association of California (CCAC), 2018

“Paradigm Shift: Transparency, Sustainability & Accountability in Public Sector Employee Compensation,” League of California Cities Annual Conference, 2011

“POBAR and FOBAR Update,” California Public Employers Labor Relations Association (CALPELRA), 2011

“Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) Developments/Helpful Hints,” County Counsels’ Association of California (CCAC), 2011




“Maintaining Control on Your Island – How to Effectively Administer Discipline,” National Public Employers Labor Relations Association (NPELRA), 2011

“Fixing the Pension Problem: The Latest Public Scrutiny of Public Sector Wage and Benefit Packages,” Public Law Journal, 2011

“Sorry We Have Nothing To Give…But ‘Let’s Make a Deal’ Anyway: How To Avoid Union ‘Outburst’” and “Are Managing Leave Laws Like Playing Twister?” Public Employer Labor Relations Association of California (PELRAC) Annual Training Conference, 2010.



Jenica Maldonado Of Counsel


Practice Areas Labor and Employment Government

Bar Admission California United States Supreme Court United States Court of Appeals,

Ninth Circuit United States District Court,

Northern District of California United States District Court,

Central District of California United States District Court,

Eastern District of California

Education University of San Francisco School

of Law, JD, magna cum laude U.S.F. Law Review, Symposium

Editor Jessup International Law Moot

Court Team Santa Clara University, BS, magna

cum laude

Experience

Jenica Maldonado has dedicated her professional life to public service, having started her career in government over twenty years ago. She is an experienced municipal law and employment attorney, equally comfortable litigating and providing advice and counsel. She aims, first and foremost, to be a strategic partner to colleagues and clients. Her experience in high-stakes matters gives her the confidence to shepherd clients through challenging situations and the perspective to navigate towards the best available outcome. Ms. Maldonado values the comradery that comes with practicing with dedicated attorneys and the trust that forms with one’s long-term clients.

RELATED EXPERIENCE Prior to joining the Renne Public Law Group, Ms. Maldonado served as a Deputy City Attorney in the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office for almost seven years. During her tenure in the Office, she worked on the Ethics and Elections Team and the Labor Team.

ETHICS & ELECTIONS TEAM As a Deputy City Attorney on the Ethics and Elections Team, Ms. Maldonado advised the Department of Elections regarding local and state election laws and municipal law matters, including public records and open meeting laws. She prepared title and summaries for local initiative measures, drafted ballot questions, and prepared preliminary ballot digests and served as the ex officio member of the City’s Ballot Simplification Committee for the November 2019, March 2020, and November 2020 elections. She defended election contests in trial and appellate courts, including obtaining dismissals of challenges to a November 2019 affordable housing general obligation bond measure. Ms.


Jenica Maldonado • 415.848.7200 • [email protected]


Maldonado counseled the Ethics Commission and staff regarding local and state ethics laws, and advised commission staff regarding ethics enforcement matters. She provided guidance to elected officials, commissioners, and City employees regarding conflict of interest laws and conducted related trainings. Ms. Maldonado also drafted legislation and provided advice regarding the City’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

LABOR TEAM As a Deputy City Attorney on the Labor Team, Ms. Maldonado represented the City in employment litigation matters at the trial and appellate court levels. Her matters ranged from single plaintiff cases alleging discrimination or disability-related claims to large, multi-plaintiff lawsuits contesting promotional exams for alleged disparate impact based on race or age. In many matters acting as lead counsel for the City, Ms. Maldonado executed complex e-discovery plans, took and defended depositions, drafted and argued motions, including motions for summary judgment, and defended successful trial court outcomes before the court of appeal. She also represented the City in labor arbitrations and administrative proceedings, including before the California Public Employment Relations Board (“PERB”), the California Department of Labor Standards and Enforcement (“DLSE”), the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”), and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).

Ms. Maldonado also served as the assigned advice attorney on labor and employment matters to various City departments, including the Public Defender, Department of Building Inspection, the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, Board of Supervisors, and the Department of Public Health.

OTHER EXPERIENCE Prior to advising the City, Ms. Maldonado was a labor and employment associate at Perkins Coie LLP and Hanson Bridgett LLP. During law school, she clerked for the Government Team at the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office and externed for the Honorable Joyce Kennard of the Supreme Court of California. Prior to law school, she interned for Senator Dianne Feinstein in Washington. D.C., for San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, and for the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency.

REPRESENTATIVE MATTERS

Some of Ms. Maldonado’s representative legal matters include:

Denny v. Arntz – successfully defended City defendants in pre- and post-elections attempting to remove a $600 million local affordable housing bond measure from the ballot and subsequently invalidate the election result in favor of the measure based on allegedly flawed language in the voter materials. Obtained dismissal and final judgment in pre-election challenge. Obtained dismissal of post-election challenge and represented City defendants on appeal.

Daugherty v. CCSF – defended San Francisco Police Department following termination of officers after discovery of racist and other offensive text messages. Managed voluminous evidence collection and production took and defended key depositions, and drafted motions. Following


Jenica Maldonado • 415.848.7200 • [email protected]


adverse trial court order, Court of Appeal issued published decision finding terminations did not violate the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (“POBRA”).

Stockwell et al. v. CCSF; Stevenson v. CCSF; Johnson v. CCSF – defended San Francisco Police Department and San Francisco Fire Department in multi-plaintiff cases challenging promotional exams for alleged disparate impact based on age and race. Managed voluminous discovery productions, defended depositions, worked with experts on statistical analyses, and drafted motions, including opposition to class certification and motions for summary judgment.

Lai v. CCSF – defended San Francisco Fire Department’s reassignment of managers to new fire stations following finding that subordinate had suffered sexual harassment. Prevailed on anti-SLAPP motion. Developed and executed discovery plan to protect third party privacy interests during substantial discovery production.

Singson v. City of Millbrae – second-chaired a federal court jury trial regarding a City of Millbrae police officer’s First Amendment retaliation claim. Conducted voir dire and examined witnesses. Obtained unanimous defense verdict.

Professional Engineers in California Government v. Schwarzenegger – litigated consolidated action before the California Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and Alameda County Superior Court relating to California’s 2010-2011 budget impasse and the California Department of Personnel Administration’s implementation of the Governor’s furlough program.

AWARDS AND HONORS

Phi Beta Kappa

Bloomberg BNA Award for Excellence in the Study of Labor and Employment



Ryan McGinley-Stempel Senior Associate(415) 848-7250 • [email protected]

Practice Areas Government Litigation

Bar Admission California United States Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit United States Court of Appeals

for the Tenth Circuit Federal District Court for the

Northern District of California Federal District Court for the

Central District of California

Education Stanford School of Law, JD Vassar College, BA

Experience

Mr. McGinley-Stempel is an associate in the firm’s Government and Litigation Practice Groups. He has experience advising on and litigating constitutional and statutory issues involving education law, employment law, public pensions and vested rights, voter initiatives, land use, public records, class actions, free speech, preemption, professional responsibility, and religious discrimination before state and federal courts and administrative agencies, including the United States Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the California Supreme Court, the California Court of Appeal, CalPERS, and the Public Employment Relations Board.

RELATED EXPERIENCE Mr. McGinley-Stempel has experience both bringing suits on behalf of and defending public agencies in actions involving the Federal and California Constitutions, the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937, the Meyers-Milias Brown Act, the Fair Employment and Housing Act, the Public Records Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. McGinley-Stempel also advises public agencies on Joint Powers Authority creation under Government Code section 6500 et seq.; worker classification in the wake of Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court; and state and federal requirements for employee drug testing.

Before joining Renne Public Law Group, Mr. McGinley-Stempel was an associate at Gibson Dunn for two years, focusing primarily on cases involving education law, employment law, the Anti-Terrorism Act, and class actions. He represented the Brennan Center for Justice and several California constitutional law professors in the California Supreme Court as amici curiae in the constitutional challenge to Proposition 66, which changed the process for imposing the death penalty in California. He also assisted with the successful defense of the City of Tallahassee, Mayor Andrew Gillum, and


Ryan McGinley-Stempel • 415.848.7250 • [email protected]


several city commissioners in an action brought under a state preemption statute that authorizes private individuals to sue local public officials for enacting or enforcing firearm regulations.

Mr. McGinley-Stempel draws further perspective and experience from his time as a law clerk, when he served Associate Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar of the California Supreme Court; Judge Scott M. Matheson of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; and Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. During his clerkship with Judge Rosenthal, Mr. McGinley-Stempel also worked on cases in the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits.

During law school, Mr. McGinley-Stempel served as a student attorney in the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, where he participated in the certiorari and merits briefing for Salinas v. Texas, 133 S. Ct. 2174 (2013). He also served as teaching assistant to Dean Larry Kramer’s Constitutional Law course, research assistant to Professor Barton H. Thompson on issues involving property law and land use, and associate editor for the Stanford Law and Policy Review.

Before law school, Ryan worked as a squash director for StreetSquash, a comprehensive youth enrichment program for at-risk youth in Harlem, New York.

PUBLICATIONS

Michael Cohen & Ryan McGinley-Stempel, “COVID-19, the Census Delay, and Local Redistricting: What Local Public Agencies Can Do to Prepare,” PublicCEO (June 25, 2020).

Jonathan Holtzman, Steve Cikes & Ryan McGinley-Stempel, “Navigating Fiscal Emergencies in the Time of Coronavirus: Tools from the Great Recession Revisited,” PublicCEO (May 19, 2020).

Ryan McGinley-Stempel, “Europe’s Immigration Problem Is Ours As Well,” S.F. Chronicle, January 20, 2016

Ann McGinley & Ryan McGinley-Stempel, "Beyond the Water Cooler: Speech and the Workplace in the Era of Social Media," 30 Hofstra Lab. & Emp. L.J. 75 (2012)

AFFILATIONS

Family Violence Appellate Project, New Leadership Council

Squash + Education Association, Professionals Board

PRESENTATIONS

“Threading the Needle: Crafting a Defensible Drug Testing Policy,” CALPELRA (November 2019)



Imran Dar Associate


Practice Areas Litigation

Bar Admission California New York

Education The Benjamin N. Cardozo School

of Law, cum laude Bard College

Experience

Imran Dar is an associate who focuses on public and constitutional law. Prior to joining RPLG, Mr. Dar served as a Judicial Fellow for Judge Laurel Beeler in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

RELATED EXPERIENCE Mr. Dar spent two years as a New York Excelsior Service Fellow with New York State Board of Elections: Division of Election Law Enforcement. In this role, he investigated corruption in state, county, and municipal elections, brought civil and administrative enforcement actions against political actors, and defended the office’s actions and legislative mandate from constitutional and statutory challenges.

Mr. Dar graduated from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law with honors, including the Federal Bar Council’s Cornelius Wickersham Jr. Award for highest-ranking student in the field of constitutional law. During law school, Mr. Dar brought 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cases for indigent plaintiffs in the criminal justice system with the Cardozo Civil Rights Clinic and was a research assistant for Professor David Rudenstine.



Michael Cohen Law Clerk


Practice Areas Litigation

Bar Admission

Education University of California, Los

Angeles, JD (May 2021) University College of London, MA University of Colorado at Boulder,

BA, magna cum laude

Experience

Beginning Fall 2021, Michael S. Cohen will be joining Renne Public Law Group as a Law Clerk. Mr. Cohen has served in the chambers of Presiding Justice Arthur Gilbert at the California Court of Appeals and pursued a variety of work advancing accessibility to social services and public benefits. On UCLA Law campus, Mr. Cohen is heavily involved with student government and political student groups and is an editor on multiple journals, including the UCLA Law Review.

Mr. Cohen works as a Legal Fellow for the UCLA Voting Rights Project. Mr. Cohen has worked on several of the recent vote-by-mail lawsuits, published policy papers and scholarship on voting rights matters, and collaborated with state and federal government officials to facilitate compliance with election laws and expand access to the voting franchise.

VOTING RIGHTS WORK

California Redistricting Reports: Wrote several reports on California counties potentially liable under the CVRA and/or VRA for private use by voting rights organization. These included a racially polarized voting analysis and alternative voting district maps establishing majority-minority districts for use in future litigation.

Asian Language Ballot Access: Identified a dozen counties nationwide with especially large limited-English-proficient Asian language-speaking populations that barely avoided coverage by Voting Rights Act section 203 during the Census Bureau’s 2016 coverage determination. I coordinated an effort with several voting rights organizations to issue letters to local election officials asking that the jurisdictions provide election materials in the relevant languages and warning them of possible litigation.

Harding v. County of Dallas, 336 F.Supp.3d 677 (N.D. Tex. 2018) (helped prepare lead counsel for Dallas County, Texas for oral arguments defending the County’s 2011 redistricting plan from Anglo voters bringing VRA section 2 claim alleging that the plan improperly favored minority voters)


Michael Cohen • 415.848.7200 • [email protected]


In re State, 602 S.W.3d 549 (Tex. 2020) (drafted several documents for amicus Texas DemocraticParty in action seeking to establish that a prospective voter’s lack of immunity to COVID-19 is abasis for obtaining a mail ballot under Texas law)

Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott, 461 F.Supp.3d 406 (W.D. Tex. 2020) (drafted several documentsin First, Fourteenth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendment challenge to Texas mail ballot access law)

Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott, 978 F.3d 168 (5th Cir. 2020) (drafted several documents inTwenty-Sixth Amendment challenge to Texas mail ballot access law)

Black Voters Matter Fund v. Raffensperger, 2020 WL 4597053 (N.D. Ga. 2020) (helped researchand write expert witness report for ACLU’s Twenty-Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment challengeto Georgia’s refusal to pay postage for mail ballots)

Issa v. Newsom, 2020 WL 6580452 (E.D. Cal. 2020) (drafted motion to intervene for intervenor-defendant voting rights organization to protect California Governor’s order that all voters receivea mail ballot for the 2020 general election)

Republican National Committee v. Newsom, 2020 WL 3430243 (E.D. Cal. 2020) (drafted motion tointervene for intervenor-defendant voting rights organization to protect California Governor’sorder that all voters receive a mail ballot for the 2020 general election)

Anderson v. Raffensperger, 2020 WL 6048048 (N.D. Ga. 2020) (drafted section of expert witnessreport for plaintiffs seeking relief from long polling location lines in Georgia during the June 2020primary election)

PUBLICATIONS

COVID-19, the Census Delay, and Local Redistricting: What Local Public Agencies Can Do toPrepare, PUBLIC CEO (June 25, 2020).

COVID-19, the Census delay and localredistricting: What local public agencies can do toprepare

By Renne Public Law Group Senior Associate Ryan McGinley-Stempel and2020 Public Law Fellow Michael Cohen

Recent News

California JPIAshares insightonrecreationaltrail immunity

January 14, 2021

San LuisObispocouncilaccepts

recommendations o�ered bythe City’s Diversity, Equity andInclusion Task ForceJanuary 14, 2021

Cathedral Citycouncilsupportsballotinitiative to

phase out short-term rentalsJanuary 14, 2021

Santa MonicaCity Councilapproves

recommendation to establishPublic Safety Reform andOversight CommissionJanuary 14, 2021

Local public agenciesresponding to the COVID-19 pandemic andgrappling with its wide-ranging e�ects have yetanother consideration toworry about: its impact onlocal redistrictingdeadlines. The Census

Bureau paused its decennial data collection operations across thecountry because of the virus, sacri�cing critical time to gather thedata that could a�ect hundreds of billions in federal funding andshift voting and trustee districts that shape the character of politicalrepresentation and community services nationwide. The delay will

City County Special District Private Sector Insights

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR DAILY NEWSLETTER! About PCEO PCEO Report Job Board

Advertise Submit an Op-Ed

https://rennepubliclawgroup.com/

https://www.publicceo.com/2021/01/california-jpia-shares-insight-on-recreational-trail-immunity/

https://www.publicceo.com/2021/01/san-luis-obispo-council-accepts-recommendations-offered-by-the-citys-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-task-force/

https://www.publicceo.com/2021/01/cathedral-city-council-supports-ballot-initiative-to-phase-out-short-term-rentals/

https://www.publicceo.com/2021/01/santa-monica-city-council-approves-recommendation-to-establish-public-safety-reform-and-oversight-commission/

https://www.publicceo.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/road-4886788_1920.png

https://www.publicceo.com/2021/01/california-jpia-shares-insight-on-recreational-trail-immunity/

https://www.publicceo.com/2021/01/san-luis-obispo-council-accepts-recommendations-offered-by-the-citys-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-task-force/

https://www.publicceo.com/2021/01/cathedral-city-council-supports-ballot-initiative-to-phase-out-short-term-rentals/

https://www.publicceo.com/2021/01/santa-monica-city-council-approves-recommendation-to-establish-public-safety-reform-and-oversight-commission/

https://www.publicceo.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Jon-and-Garvey-post-2-300x214-1.png

https://www.facebook.com/PCEONews

https://twitter.com/publicceo

https://www.linkedin.com/company/pceo/

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8aSEs12Tj1Unl8ti19CFFw

mailto:[email protected]

https://www.publicceo.com/

https://www.publicceo.com/city/

https://www.publicceo.com/county/

https://www.publicceo.com/special-district/

https://www.publicceo.com/private-sector/

https://www.publicceo.com/insights/

https://www.publicceo.com/subscribe/

https://www.publicceo.com/about/

https://www.publicceo.com/report/

https://www.publicceo.com/job-board/

https://www.publicceo.com/advertise/

https://www.publicceo.com/dear-local-leaders/

Mono CountySupervisorStacy Corlessinstalled aschair of Rural

county Representatives ofCaliforniaJanuary 14, 2021

have a profound ripple e�ect on leadership at all levels of Californiagovernment; o�cials must remain attentive to shifting deadlines andpending legislation that will dictate their responsibilities throughoutthe year.

Despite the potentially signi�cant impact of the delay, manyjurisdictions in the state remain unaware of how the census delaya�ects their redistricting obligations and deadlines. Although theCalifornia Legislature and the California Supreme Court appearpoised to �x most of the potential issues arising from the censusdelay, there are a number of other actions that local agencies cantake to prepare sooner rather than later. In particular, o�cials ofcharter cities should consider whether any measures must be takento extend redistricting deadlines (if any) set forth in their chartersand ordinances.

Redistricting and the CensusRedistricting—the process of redrawing the boundaries of districtsfrom which public o�cials are elected at the federal, state, and locallevel—determines the composition of districts that elect publico�cials at every level of government. It is impossible to appreciatethe signi�cance of the census delay without bearing in mind theimportance of the decennial redistricting and the di�culty anddrawn out nature of the redistricting process.

In California, several di�erent types of jurisdictions redistrict. At thestate level there are federal congressional districts, state legislativedistricts, and board of equalization districts; at the county level,supervisor districts and trustee areas for county boards of education;at the municipal level, city council districts; for school districts andcommunity college districts, trustee areas; and for certain specialdistricts, divisions. These districts necessarily overlap, creating a quiltof districts at many levels of government across the state. Somejurisdictions have been divided into districts for many years, whileothers only recently moved to by-district elections in the wake of theCalifornia Voting Rights Act and the explosion of ensuing litigation.

Districts in California must be drawn in compliance with state andfederal constitutional and statutory requirements. These includerequirements under the Voting Rights Act, the 14th Amendment, theCalifornia Voting Rights Act, and redistricting guidelines in theCalifornia Constitution, Government Code, Elections Code, and localcharters and ordinances. Compliance with these guidelines requiresdata-intensive approaches and carefully executed discretion. Some

https://www.lcwlegal.com/

https://www.raymondjames.com/corporations-and-institutions/public-finance

https://www.publicceo.com/2021/01/mono-county-supervisor-stacy-corless-installed-as-chair-of-rural-county-representatives-of-california/

https://www.publicceo.com/2021/01/mono-county-supervisor-stacy-corless-installed-as-chair-of-rural-county-representatives-of-california/

jurisdictions may elect to redistrict at will, but most districts areredrawn following the decennial census.

Redistricting also comes with signi�cant public hearing and outreachrequirements that contribute to drawn-out redistricting timelines. Atthe state level, map-drawers must meet strict transparency andpublic engagement requirements throughout the process.1 Topromote public participation during the last redistricting cycle, thestate Redistricting Commission held more than 70 business meetingsand 34 public hearings in 32 cities throughout the state.2 For countysupervisor districts, multiple hearings are required at di�erent stagesof the redistricting process, with requirements as to timing, publicoutreach, and other matters of accessibility.3 The requirements aresimilar for charter4 and general law cities.5 O�cials redistrictingschool districts and community college district trustee areas musthold at least one public hearing,6 as must o�cials in specialdistricts.7 And special transparency rules apply to local governmentjurisdictions in the process of transitioning from at-large to by-districtelections.8

Under normal conditions, the Census Bureau would deliver thecounts to the president by December 31, 2020, and the states wouldreceive the data no later than April 1, 2021.9 Because the CensusBureau has consistently adhered to this schedule for the last �vedecades, California has treated this deadline as de�nitive in craftingconstitutional and statutory deadlines for redistricting. The CitizenRedistricting Commission, for example, is constitutionally required toredraw and �nally approve the maps for congressional, state senate,state assembly, and state board of equalization districts by August15, 2021.10 Counties and cities, for their part, are statutorily requiredto adopt new maps no later than 151 days before their next regularelection occurring after March 1, 2022, which works out to October 8,2021 for the election scheduled for March 8, 2022.11

As a result of the pandemic, however, the Census Bureau’s decennialdata reporting will likely be delayed from April 1, 2021 until as late asJuly 31, 2021. The delay will a�ect this decade’s redistricting round,which already takes place within a compressed timeline, at almostevery level of California government. The Citizens RedistrictingCommission, for example, could have only 15 days to meet its August15, 2021 constitutional deadline to redraw and approve theboundary lines for congressional, state senate, state assembly, andboard of equalization districts.12 If it fails to do so, the CaliforniaSupreme Court may be required to appoint a specialmaster.13 Certain special districts seeking to hold an election for a

director on March 8, 2022 would need to �nalize division boundariesby September 9, 2021.14 Although cities and counties would havemore time to redraw their district maps, they, too, would havelimited time to receive public input and �nalize district maps by theOctober 8, 2021 statutory deadline. And if cities and counties fail todo so timely, they could be liable for attorney’s fees and costsincurred by any resident who petitions the superior court for anorder adopting supervisorial and council district boundaries, as wellas the costs associated with a special master if the superior courtappoints one to assist the court with adopting new districtboundaries.15

Senate Bill 970 Would ChangeRedistricting Deadlines for MostCities and Counties, But Not SomeCharter CitiesThankfully, pending legislation in Sacramento, SB 970, seeks to moveCalifornia’s March 2022 election back to June 2022, which would givepublic agencies across the state some breathing room in theirredistricting e�orts. The bill has met no opposition so far and isprojected to be adopted later this week. If SB 970 is adopted andsigned by the Governor, local redistricting deadlines will change tothe following:

Notably, some charter city redistricting deadlines default to thegeneral law city deadlines, but those chartered cities that haveadopted local redistricting deadlines untethered to the election datewill not have their redistricting deadlines automaticallydelayed.16 Charter cities of the latter sort may need to takeadditional steps to allow for additional time to meet their localredistricting deadlines. We recommend that o�cials in all chartercities familiarize themselves with any redistricting deadlines in theircity’s charter or ordinances. Those jurisdictions that have adoptedredistricting deadlines that fall before December 2021 may thenconsider what actions they must take (e.g., placing a charteramendment on the November 2020 ballot) to give themselvessu�cient time to adopt new maps.

Pending Litigation Before theCalifornia Supreme Court CouldExtend the Deadlines for theCitizens Redistricting CommissionWhat about the August 15, 2021 deadline for the CitizensRedistricting Commission to redistrict federal congressional, statelegislative, and board of equalization districts? Because this deadlineis a creature of the California Constitution,17 not statute, it cannot beextended by the Legislature or the Governor even through theGovernor’s broad emergency powers. Must the Citizens RedistrictingCommission redraw these districts in only two weeks to meet thestate constitutional deadline if Congress allows the Census Bureau todelay its decennial data reporting until July 31, 2021?

The good news is that the California Legislature is being proactive onthis front, too, petitioning the California Supreme Court in Legislatureof the State of California v. Padilla (S262530) to extend the deadline inorder to e�ectuate the California Constitution’s intended purpose ofrequiring the Citizens Redistricting Commission to redrawcongressional, state senate, state assembly, and board ofequalization district maps with maximum public participation. Giventhat the Court has already noti�ed the parties it is seriouslyconsidering granting the petition,18 in our view, there is a goodchance that the Court will extend the deadlines for redistricting atthe state level.

Key Takeaways for Local PublicAgenciesThe census delay, SB 970, and emergency writ petition in Legislatureof the State of California v. Padilla will change most redistrictingdeadlines throughout California. Certainty regarding these deadlinesshould be possible within the next month.19 But the consequencesof missing these deadlines could be costly, as courts may be asked tointervene and direct special masters to hire personnel, purchasetechnology, and incur other signi�cant costs for which the county orcity would be liable.20 To avoid these consequences, jurisdictionscan prepare now to meet redistricting deadlines that are altered orhave become more compressed. In particular, we recommend that:

O�cials in all jurisdictions monitor the dates and deadlines thatare currently in �ux:

The census data reporting date, which is subject to theCensus Bureau meeting its publicized deadlines;The 2022 election date, which is likely to change becauseof SB 970; andThe state’s Citizens Redistricting Commission deadline,which may change depending on the California SupremeCourt’s ruling in Legislature of the State of California v.Padilla

Cities and counties with redistricting deadlines tied to the 2022election date prioritize crafting a new schedule that front-loadshearings while pushing back internal deadlines by four monthsto ensure they have enough time to meet their redistrictingdeadlinesCities and counties review their candidate �ling deadlinesO�cials in all charter cities familiarize themselves with theredistricting deadlines in their city’s charter or ordinances andconsider whether they need to seek more time to adopt newmaps through judicial action, legislation or charter amendmentJurisdictions notify their residents about the delay as soon aspossible.

RPLG practices throughout California, advising and advocating forpublic agencies, nonpro�t entities, individuals and private entities inneed of e�ective, responsive and creative legal solutions.

1 – Cal. Const. art. XXI; see also Gov. Code § 8253(a)(7) (TheCommission must “establish and implement an open hearingprocess for public input and deliberation that shall be subject topublic notice and promoted through a thorough outreach programto solicit broad public participation in the redistricting public reviewprocess”).

2 – Vandermost v. Bowen, 53 Cal. 4th 421, 445-46 (2012).

3 -Elec. Code §§ 21507-21508.

4 – Elec. Code §§ 21627-21628.

https://rennepubliclawgroup.com/

https://www.bbklaw.com/

5 – Elec. Code §§ 21607-21608.

6 – Educ. Code § 5019(c)(2).

7 – Elec. Code § 22001.

8 – Elec. Code § 10010.

9 – The deadlines are set in federal law at 13 U.S.C. § 141(b) and 2U.S.C. §§ 2a(a)-(b).

10 – Cal. Const., art. XXI, § 2(g).

11 – Elec. Code §§ 21501 (counties), 21622 (cities).

12 – Cal. Const., art. XXI, § 2(g).

13 – Cal. Const., art. XXI, §§ 2(j), 3.

14 – Elec. Code § 22000(d) (providing that no change in special districtdivision boundaries following the decennial census “may be madewithin 180 days preceding the election of any director”).

15 – Elec. Code §§ 21509(a) & (b)(2) (counties), 21609(a) & (b)(2)(cities).

16 – See Elec. Code § 21622(b).

17 – See Cal. Const., art. XII, § 2(g).

18 – See Legislature of the State of California v. Padilla, No. S262530,Docket, Order dated June 22, 2020.

19 – If the Court ultimately decides to grant the emergency petitionin Legislature of the State of California v. Padilla, it is likely to do so byJuly 13, 2020, which is the last day that the Legislature will have timeto decide whether to put a constitutional amendment on theNovember 2020 ballot asking voters to allow the CitizensRedistricting Commission more time to do its work. Although theCalifornia Assembly is on recess, the Speaker has called an irregularmeeting to be held on the week of June 22. The Assembly is likely topass SB 970 during that session. Once Governor Newsom signs thebill, jurisdictions can be certain about the 2022 election date.Otherwise, the bill is likely to become law early in the next legislativesession, which commences on July 13.

20 – See Elec. Code §§ 21509, 21609, 21629 (setting out the requiredprocedures for counties, general law cities, and charter cities that

June 25, 2020 | Attorney, Cities, COVID-19, Insights, Planning and Development,State Government A�airs

Share This Story!

Top of MindHow are you telling your agency's story?

miss their redistricting deadline).

© Copyright 2021 Public CEO | [email protected] | Privacy Policy

https://www.publicceo.com/category/insights/attorney/

https://www.publicceo.com/category/cities/

https://www.publicceo.com/category/covid-19/

https://www.publicceo.com/category/insights/

https://www.publicceo.com/category/planning-and-development/

https://www.publicceo.com/category/state-government-affairs/

https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.publicceo.com%2F2020%2F06%2Fcovid-19-the-census-delay-and-local-redistricting-what-local-public-agencies-can-do-to-prepare%2F&t=COVID-19%2C%20the%20Census%20delay%20and%20local%20redistricting%3A%20What%20local%20public%20agencies%20can%20do%20to%20prepare

https://twitter.com/share?text=COVID-19%2C%20the%20Census%20delay%20and%20local%20redistricting%3A%20What%20local%20public%20agencies%20can%20do%20to%20prepare&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.publicceo.com%2F2020%2F06%2Fcovid-19-the-census-delay-and-local-redistricting-what-local-public-agencies-can-do-to-prepare%2F

https://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.publicceo.com%2F2020%2F06%2Fcovid-19-the-census-delay-and-local-redistricting-what-local-public-agencies-can-do-to-prepare%2F&title=COVID-19%2C%20the%20Census%20delay%20and%20local%20redistricting%3A%20What%20local%20public%20agencies%20can%20do%20to%20prepare&summary=By%20Renne%20Public%20Law%20Group%20Senior%20Associate%20Ryan%20McGinley-Stempel%20and%202020%20Public%20Law%20Fellow%20Michael%20Cohen%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0ALocal%20public%20agencies%20responding%20to%20the%20COVID-19%20pandemic%20and

mailto:?subject=COVID-19%2C%20the%20Census%20delay%20and%20local%20redistricting%3A%20What%20local%20public%20agencies%20can%20do%20to%20prepare&body=https://www.publicceo.com/2020/06/covid-19-the-census-delay-and-local-redistricting-what-local-public-agencies-can-do-to-prepare/


https://www.publicceo.com/privacy-policy/

https://www.facebook.com/PCEONews

https://twitter.com/publicceo

https://www.linkedin.com/company/pceo/

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8aSEs12Tj1Unl8ti19CFFw


Documents

RENNE PUBLIC LAW GROUP